Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GoblinCookie]

The issue is manpower. Managing to patrol the surface and caverns (scales with embark area), omniscient god-vision removed (planned), having enough reserve forces to relieve them for training and rest, and still having enough dwarves left for food production (rebalance planned) or the necessary surplus value. And then your civilians decide to take a drink in carp-infested waters.

Manpower is not an issue because the patrols are squads of regular soldiers that would otherwise be training.  Training is presently rather fast anyway and you do not need legendary axedwarves to fight a few wolves.  God vision being removed is why we need squads on patrol, at the moment all you would need is an announcement to tell you lions are about and then you could deploy a squad between the lions and your dwarves.

Predators should be too dumb to tell if their victims are armed are not.  This is why civilian weaponry still does not make much sense even taking into account beasts, the victims would likely still die and would only manage to potentially wound the predators.  What beasts care about is stuff like numbers, in real-life predators work on bulk, they compare the relative bulk of themselves and their group against the relative bulk of their prey.  The predators will be more afraid of a large group of unarmed people than a single armed people, yes the armed person might be able to kill the predators but that is a 'probability thing' so not really good enough.  A reduction of the probability of death from 100% to 90% is not going to be seriously considered much of an improvement. 

When they see a squad or even a group of squads, the beasts should in most cases flee since they are outbulked.  Only the largest or most numerous predators should fight and they would then get dispatched fairly easily by the squad in most cases since they have advantages in armour and weapons that the beasts did not consider. 

@ GoblinCookie - The vampire shouldn't be expecting a fight, but that's covered above if one happens - talk their way out, or hope they can either kill them and successfully convince the fortress guard they were in fact being attacked by a vampire or that justice fails a spot check and gets the vic beaten with a club or chained to a wall instead. Vampires would of course have their own reasons for wanting to arm themselves - they can still die from violence, ultimately want to protect others without serving in the military, or be power hungry pricks after all, in addition to using the weapon to fight victims who accidentally wake up when they try to feed. Everyone being armed actually makes them being armed too not unusual, and serves to help hide their presence a bit, because they have weaponizable tools or a personal dagger or axe like anyone else in the fort.

If the dwarves sleep with their civilian weapons then the vampires can just remove the weapons from their victims bodies and then kill them with it (has the added advantage of not being traceable).  If dwarves carry weapons but don't sleep with them, the vampires can take their own weapons to their dormitories and then it won't matter if their victims wake up.  If nobody is armed then if the victims wake up they can punch the vampires in the face and the vampires can't do nothing except fight back in a messy way that will draw the attention of everyone else.

So vampires are not an argument for civilian vampires, everyone is actually safer against vampires if nobody is armed.

[SixOfSpades]

     Okay, this weapons-for-civilians thread has officially spent FAR too much time as a vampire thread. Let me just say that whether personal weapons would actually be useful against vampires or not, dwarves would still want them, and even sleep with them if desired. More effective would be bedroom doors that can be locked/barred from the inside, or general-issue gorgets like this one, but those are topics for other threads, in my opinion. Vampires don't make much sense, and I'll accept that they'll continue to not make much sense, until they get rebalanced.

This is why civilian weaponry still does not make much sense even taking into account beasts, the victims would likely still die and would only manage to potentially wound the predators.

     That depends SO much on the type of enemy being faced that it's not a fair generalization. With a good staff in my hand, I know that I'm still not going to do jack against a rhinoceros--but if it's only a couple of dogs, I could probably handle that okay. Even facing a goblin armed with sword, shield, & helmet, I'd still consider that a pretty fair fight--but I'd run if he brought a friend along. Personally, I say civilian weapons should be turned on by default: Even in an embark with wild rhinos & goblins, I'd still want to have a staff on me, in case I ran into a snake or something.

What beasts care about is stuff like numbers, in real-life predators work on bulk, they compare the relative bulk of themselves and their group against the relative bulk of their prey.

     Largely true, although many animals--herbivores & carnivores alike--will frequently take on wildly unbalanced odds (or at least make a show of doing so) if they're defending their lair, or defending their young, or surprised, or simply uncommonly aggressive, like wolverines.

These are also valid reasons why eventually dwarves may want to have personal protection - they can't spare the time to train in the militia and the militia may not be able to come and save them, but maybe they can kill an attacker, drive away an animal, or slow down an invader while the militia rushes to their position as quick as thier stubby steel-plated legs can haul them.

     One thing that's always annoyed me is how fighting types are just loaded down with various combat stats, whereas civilians have, like, four hitpoints and carry a tickle-stick. Age of Empires? Guard your villagers, they're made of eggshells. Baldur's Gate? Put your weapon away before you attack a commoner, or you'll murder them in 1 hit. StarCraft? SCVs can kinda handle Zerglings, but if it's anything else run like hell. Etc. Dwarf Fortress has the opportunity to break that mold: We've seen civilians tank invading goblins, and Legendary warriors get one-shotted. Combat, any combat, is largely a crap shoot, and the best helmet in the world shouldn't save you from getting knocked out from a solid blow to the head. Being a fighter should be not so much a matter of being formally organized into a squad, but rather simply wanting to be a fighter. Heck, civilians with combative tendencies (including children) should spontaneously engage in Individual Combat Drill, or even sparring, during their free time. Blur the line, I say.

[Splint]

     Okay, this weapons-for-civilians thread has officially spent FAR too much time as a vampire thread. Let me just say that whether personal weapons would actually be useful against vampires or not, dwarves would still want them, and even sleep with them if desired. More effective would be bedroom doors that can be locked/barred from the inside, or general-issue gorgets like this one, but those are topics for other threads, in my opinion. Vampires don't make much sense, and I'll accept that they'll continue to not make much sense, until they get rebalanced.

This is why civilian weaponry still does not make much sense even taking into account beasts, the victims would likely still die and would only manage to potentially wound the predators.

     That depends SO much on the type of enemy being faced that it's not a fair generalization. With a good staff in my hand, I know that I'm still not going to do jack against a rhinoceros--but if it's only a couple of dogs, I could probably handle that okay. Even facing a goblin armed with sword, shield, & helmet, I'd still consider that a pretty fair fight--but I'd run if he brought a friend along. Personally, I say civilian weapons should be turned on by default: Even in an embark with wild rhinos & goblins, I'd still want to have a staff on me, in case I ran into a snake or something.

What beasts care about is stuff like numbers, in real-life predators work on bulk, they compare the relative bulk of themselves and their group against the relative bulk of their prey.

     Largely true, although many animals--herbivores & carnivores alike--will frequently take on wildly unbalanced odds (or at least make a show of doing so) if they're defending their lair, or defending their young, or surprised, or simply uncommonly aggressive, like wolverines.

These are also valid reasons why eventually dwarves may want to have personal protection - they can't spare the time to train in the militia and the militia may not be able to come and save them, but maybe they can kill an attacker, drive away an animal, or slow down an invader while the militia rushes to their position as quick as thier stubby steel-plated legs can haul them.

     One thing that's always annoyed me is how fighting types are just loaded down with various combat stats, whereas civilians have, like, four hitpoints and carry a tickle-stick. Age of Empires? Guard your villagers, they're made of eggshells. Baldur's Gate? Put your weapon away before you attack a commoner, or you'll murder them in 1 hit. StarCraft? SCVs can kinda handle Zerglings, but if it's anything else run like hell. Etc. Dwarf Fortress has the opportunity to break that mold: We've seen civilians tank invading goblins, and Legendary warriors get one-shotted. Combat, any combat, is largely a crap shoot, and the best helmet in the world shouldn't save you from getting knocked out from a solid blow to the head. Being a fighter should be not so much a matter of being formally organized into a squad, but rather simply wanting to be a fighter. Heck, civilians with combative tendencies (including children) should spontaneously engage in Individual Combat Drill, or even sparring, during their free time. Blur the line, I say.

Can I borrow your brain? Mine keeps overthinking things and you've once again made my own argument better than me.

The whole vampire tangent is was just because of something a few of us latched onto because they'd be a Huuuuuuge reason for the thread's topic to happen. There's a killer among us, so now everyone is paranoid or wants to be ready to protect themselves or others, but bare hands aren't really that great for fighting a vampire you caught feeding on someone (or a bunch of crundles, or a hungry coyote,) now, is it?

[GoblinCookie]

     Okay, this weapons-for-civilians thread has officially spent FAR too much time as a vampire thread. Let me just say that whether personal weapons would actually be useful against vampires or not, dwarves would still want them, and even sleep with them if desired. More effective would be bedroom doors that can be locked/barred from the inside, or general-issue gorgets like this one, but those are topics for other threads, in my opinion. Vampires don't make much sense, and I'll accept that they'll continue to not make much sense, until they get rebalanced.

Locks would be far more useful against vampires if their strategy is based upon sneaking up on people while they sleep.  But even if they cannot sneak up on sleeping people, civilian weaponry makes things easier for vampires not harder.  That is because vampires are still a covert attacker have the advantage of surprise.  If civilian weapons are allowed the vampires go about the place carrying an enormous battleaxe and then they can kill off their unarmoured victim with a single surprise strike. 

If they cannot go around carrying weapons then they don't have any swift means to dispatch their victims in a surprise attack, which makes their life a lot harder.  The more powerful the weapons available, the more in favours the surprise attacker, the weaker the weapons available the more it favours the defender.  If vampires have to use their bare hands this works in their victims favour even if their victims are also armed with their bare hands (the same applies to any murderer really).   

     That depends SO much on the type of enemy being faced that it's not a fair generalization. With a good staff in my hand, I know that I'm still not going to do jack against a rhinoceros--but if it's only a couple of dogs, I could probably handle that okay. Even facing a goblin armed with sword, shield, & helmet, I'd still consider that a pretty fair fight--but I'd run if he brought a friend along. Personally, I say civilian weapons should be turned on by default: Even in an embark with wild rhinos & goblins, I'd still want to have a staff on me, in case I ran into a snake or something.

Anything that is realistically going to actually attack you, a lone stick is not going to save your life.  Since the dogs would not actually fight you in the first place, your ability to clobber them with a stick is irrelevant. 

     Largely true, although many animals--herbivores & carnivores alike--will frequently take on wildly unbalanced odds (or at least make a show of doing so) if they're defending their lair, or defending their young, or surprised, or simply uncommonly aggressive, like wolverines.

None of those examples have any relevance to the situation we are dealing with.  We should not be not sending our civilians into the lairs of bears or whatever. 

     One thing that's always annoyed me is how fighting types are just loaded down with various combat stats, whereas civilians have, like, four hitpoints and carry a tickle-stick. Age of Empires? Guard your villagers, they're made of eggshells. Baldur's Gate? Put your weapon away before you attack a commoner, or you'll murder them in 1 hit. StarCraft? SCVs can kinda handle Zerglings, but if it's anything else run like hell. Etc. Dwarf Fortress has the opportunity to break that mold: We've seen civilians tank invading goblins, and Legendary warriors get one-shotted. Combat, any combat, is largely a crap shoot, and the best helmet in the world shouldn't save you from getting knocked out from a solid blow to the head. Being a fighter should be not so much a matter of being formally organized into a squad, but rather simply wanting to be a fighter. Heck, civilians with combative tendencies (including children) should spontaneously engage in Individual Combat Drill, or even sparring, during their free time. Blur the line, I say.

Of course fighting types are loaded up with fighting stats and civilians get massacred if they try to fight them!  Because they are trained up and well-equipped for fighting purposes and the civilians are not.  The mold you are trying to break is reality, civilians are basically useless for fighting purposes; that is why they *is* a concept of civilian in the first place. 

What the individuals want does not matter, neither does their personality matter and nor does the randomness of the result of any individual duel between any two combatants.  What matters is something called Lanchester's Laws, which can pretty much be summed up as, between two forces that are otherwise equal the one that is larger not only prevails but does so with proportionally fewer casualties the greater it's advantage is size.  This is the very simple reason that war is not built on individualistic notions like whether I personally feel like fighting right now.

Given Lanchester's Laws what determines victory is the ability of a faction to concentrate the greatest amount of military force at the point of contact.  Civilians are useless in this sense not because they lack weapons, or even training but also because their actions are determined by their individual attributes, causing them to respond chaotically.  The individual attributes of a soldier by contrast do not determine their collective actions, this means that they can move in unison to concentrate force at the point of contact while by contrast the chaotic behavior of individual civilians causes them to suffer from Lanchester's Laws to the maximum extent possible (they die pointlessly).

The most militarily effective thing for civilians to do is for them all to run away.  Once they have run away, the most effective thing to do is to arm themselves and then gather together into an actual army, as large as possible.  Giving civilians weapons encourages notions of individual heroism, which then causes some of your civilians to get killed pointlessly with no damage done to the enemy, meaning that when the smart ones (the one's that ran away) are assembled together there are fewer of them and your side also loses pointlessly.

Arming civilians just meant that the brave ones got themselves killed pointlessly.  Depriving them of weapons until they are organised militarily however reduces their bravery in a dispersed state, which is a good thing.

[Manveru Taurënér]

We don't really want our dwarves to always do the most effective thing though. Whether arguing based on the rule of cool, realism, fun, or story generation letting civilians arm themselves if they so wish and if it fits their personality and the situation choose fight over flight is a good idea (imo), regardless of if it means they sometimes get themselves killed. A dwarf that "is utterly fearless when confronted with danger, to the point of lacking common sense" should very much act that way when actually confronted with danger, and him say being a blacksmith wielding his hammer, or wielding a sword that he bought and trained with in his spare time hoping to some day join the fortress guard allows for better stories than those kind of dwarves always being limited to wrestling the threat or contrary to their personality running away. We already have a personality trait determining a dwarf's view on weapons in the Martial Prowess trait, so making dwarves in the top 3 tiers on the scale want a weapon of their own makes perfect sense. This doesn't mean they should always be stupid though (though the stupid ones definitely should be!), having a fortress emergency trigger them to go get their weapons/armor from their quarters and go to help the militia wouldn't be a difficult thing to implement most likely.

Likewise dwarves who "would flee even the most necessary battle to avoid any form of physical confrontation" should be prone to fleeing even if drafted into the militia (which afaik isn't the case currently), though there should preferably be some kind of notification when trying to enlist them that this dwarf has one or several traits making them wholly unsuitable for the military. The more things that helps differentiate our dwarves and make their personalities actually have an impact on gameplay the better.

Arguing whether being armed or not is actually helpful in various specific circumstances is completely beside the point, such notions have rarely stopped people in real life and shouldn't here either.

[Splint]

Likewise dwarves who "would flee even the most necessary battle to avoid any form of physical confrontation" should be prone to fleeing even if drafted into the militia (which afaik isn't the case currently)

Without sufficient discipline and general emotional hardening, more naturally cowardly dwarves with either flee when confronted by the enemy (overcome by terror,) or become to horrified (overwhelmed by horror) to fight once the first sapient or two is killed (be they allies or enemies.) They essentially need to be drilled until they can keep themselves from running away or becoming horrendously dumbstruck by the carnage of (often incredibly messy melee) combat. Same goes for enemy combatants who might spin on thier heels and run in the opposite direction when a handful of dwarves advance on them or a few of thier guys (or yours) die.

Doesn't happen often, since by first contact your dwarves tend to be fairly disciplined and the enemy uses what seems to be a skill template of some sort (I noticed most world gen soldiers tend to be between competent and professional skill level in the areas they need, sometimes including discipline,) or at least they did back in earlier versions giving them a standard of training in necessary fightin' skills.

[SixOfSpades]

Can I borrow your brain?

     Sorry, no, I'm in the middle of a big project at the moment.

. . . bare hands aren't really that great for fighting a vampire you caught feeding on someone, now, is it?

     As I said, I don't think this thread is the place to discuss vampires, but just for the sake of being unbiased, I'll play along for a bit.

Let's say you're unarmed, and entering the dormitory, you see someone stooped over another dwarf, who is fast asleep--and looking quite pale. The stooping figure turns, notices you, and hisses, & you see the fresh blood dripping off its chin. Enraged at this perversion of nature murdering innocents in their sleep, you fly at the figure, trying for a quick tackle. The vampire knows that his life is on the line, too, and so grapples with everything he's got--you do the same, while yelling loud enough to wake the dead--or at least summon enough dwarves to grab you both & separate you. When the dust clears, you & the vampire both accuse each other, but he's the one with blood around his mouth.
Alternatively, let's say that you're not unarmed, you're a Miner toting her trusty copper pick. As you enter the dormitory, you see someone stooped over another dwarf, who is fast asleep--and looking quite pale. The stooping figure turns, notices you, and hisses, & you see the fresh blood dripping off its chin. Enraged at this perversion of nature murdering innocents in their sleep, you fly at the figure, and use your years of digging to swing a precise blow that instantly caves in his skull. When the other dwarves enter, you indicate your vanquished foe and say, "He was a vampire! I killed him before he could wipe poor Bomrek's blood off his face!" The chief medical dwarf looks at the puddle of pulp that was the vampire's head, looks back at you, and says, "Well, maybe, maybe NOT."
     So, carrying a weapon is arguably better for the dwarf, but not necessarily for the fortress as a whole.

But even if they cannot sneak up on sleeping people, civilian weaponry makes things easier for vampires not harder.  That is because vampires are still a covert attacker have the advantage of surprise.  If civilian weapons are allowed the vampires go about the place carrying an enormous battleaxe and then they can kill off their unarmoured victim with a single surprise strike.

     A vampire's goal is not to kill, their goal is to drink blood, blood pumped out by a living victim. The victim can be unconscious, or restrained, but not dead. Lose that battleaxe and find a club instead--and be very careful how you use it.

With a good staff in my hand, I know that I'm still not going to do jack against a rhinoceros--but if it's only a couple of dogs, I could probably handle that okay. Personally, I say civilian weapons should be turned on by default: Even in an embark with wild rhinos & goblins, I'd still want to have a staff on me, in case I ran into a snake or something.

Anything that is realistically going to actually attack you, a lone stick is not going to save your life.  Since the dogs would not actually fight you in the first place, your ability to clobber them with a stick is irrelevant.

     Okay, now, that is just completely wrong. A staff can break bone quite easily if you know how to use it. While it wouldn't be really effective against, say, a grizzly bear (which has a lot of padding) or a mountain lion (which, by the time it gets within range, is already falling right down onto you, claws first), I'd still much rather have a staff than NOT have one. As for dogs, you've clearly never been around the wrong kind of dog.

     Largely true, although many animals--herbivores & carnivores alike--will frequently take on wildly unbalanced odds (or at least make a show of doing so) if they're defending their lair, or defending their young, or surprised, or simply uncommonly aggressive, like wolverines.

None of those examples have any relevance to the situation we are dealing with.  We should not be not sending our civilians into the lairs of bears or whatever.

     We send Herbalists all over the fields, where their presence disrupts and threatens badgers. We send Woodcutters to go chop down the trees where Great Horned Owls (admittedly, should) live. We send Weavers to gather up the webs that cave spiders and Greater cave spiders need for food. We send Fisherdwarves to the riverbank, right through the nesting areas of the herons, egrets, and alligators. And yes, we do send Miners & Masons to go tear down that bear den and build a Tavern there.

Of course fighting types are loaded up with fighting stats and civilians get massacred if they try to fight them!  Because they are trained up and well-equipped for fighting purposes and the civilians are not.  The mold you are trying to break is reality, civilians are basically useless for fighting purposes; that is why they *is* a concept of civilian in the first place.

     Really? Even if they're covert attackers and have the advantage of surprise? A civilian can't go about the place carrying an enormous battleaxe and then kill off their victim with a single surprise strike? Of course they can . . . well, okay, maybe not a literal battleaxe, but certainly a knife, or hammer, or chain / saw / frying pan / broom / etc. That's because the #1 most important part of fighting is being mentally ready to fight, to be paying full attention, wide stance, guard up, knowing that you're about to kill or BE killed. If you don't have that, your weapons, training, and even armor will probably not save you. Panicking and running away might save you, you do have a point there, but most animals can outrun humans, and humans would logically outrun dwarves.
     Most games use a wildly different metric for civilians then they do for combatants: You could easily shrug off, indeed hardly even notice, blows that would literally bisect an innocent villager. "Don't go into that burning building, citizen, for you will surely be burned alive--whereas I can survive it, because I am trained in archery!" Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that equipment and experience shouldn't matter, I'm just saying that other games exaggerate the difference to a ridiculous extent, and it'd be nice to see DF drag it back to reality. In reality, someone who wants to be a threat to you is a threat to you, no matter what they're holding. Sure, three soldiers vs. three civilians is a clear victory for the soldiers--but the civilians might just take a soldier with them. One soldier against three civilians with nothing to lose? The soldier might kill one or two, but that soldier is definitely going to die, especially if two of the civilians focus on grappling.

We don't really want our dwarves to always do the most effective thing though. Whether arguing based on the rule of cool, realism, fun, or story generation letting civilians arm themselves if they so wish and if it fits their personality and the situation choose fight over flight is a good idea (imo), regardless of if it means they sometimes get themselves killed.

Precisely. There is no good reason not to let each individual dwarf choose. It makes no sense to allow them to claim clothes, and food, and earrings, but forbid them to do the same with their own tools.

[GoblinCookie]

We don't really want our dwarves to always do the most effective thing though. Whether arguing based on the rule of cool, realism, fun, or story generation letting civilians arm themselves if they so wish and if it fits their personality and the situation choose fight over flight is a good idea (imo), regardless of if it means they sometimes get themselves killed. A dwarf that "is utterly fearless when confronted with danger, to the point of lacking common sense" should very much act that way when actually confronted with danger, and him say being a blacksmith wielding his hammer, or wielding a sword that he bought and trained with in his spare time hoping to some day join the fortress guard allows for better stories than those kind of dwarves always being limited to wrestling the threat or contrary to their personality running away. We already have a personality trait determining a dwarf's view on weapons in the Martial Prowess trait, so making dwarves in the top 3 tiers on the scale want a weapon of their own makes perfect sense. This doesn't mean they should always be stupid though (though the stupid ones definitely should be!), having a fortress emergency trigger them to go get their weapons/armor from their quarters and go to help the militia wouldn't be a difficult thing to implement most likely.

Likewise dwarves who "would flee even the most necessary battle to avoid any form of physical confrontation" should be prone to fleeing even if drafted into the militia (which afaik isn't the case currently), though there should preferably be some kind of notification when trying to enlist them that this dwarf has one or several traits making them wholly unsuitable for the military. The more things that helps differentiate our dwarves and make their personalities actually have an impact on gameplay the better.

Arguing whether being armed or not is actually helpful in various specific circumstances is completely beside the point, such notions have rarely stopped people in real life and shouldn't here either.

Only by considering the various circumstances is quite helpful is finding out whether this feature is worthwhile.  As far as considering the circumstances I find there to be many disadvantages and few advantages to arming civilians and the disadvantages go up the more realistic the game AI gets.  I don't think the devs should waste their limited time introducing a feature into the game only to have the wiki come up with a list of reasons why it should always be deactivated. 

     As I said, I don't think this thread is the place to discuss vampires, but just for the sake of being unbiased, I'll play along for a bit.

Let's say you're unarmed, and entering the dormitory, you see someone stooped over another dwarf, who is fast asleep--and looking quite pale. The stooping figure turns, notices you, and hisses, & you see the fresh blood dripping off its chin. Enraged at this perversion of nature murdering innocents in their sleep, you fly at the figure, trying for a quick tackle. The vampire knows that his life is on the line, too, and so grapples with everything he's got--you do the same, while yelling loud enough to wake the dead--or at least summon enough dwarves to grab you both & separate you. When the dust clears, you & the vampire both accuse each other, but he's the one with blood around his mouth.
Alternatively, let's say that you're not unarmed, you're a Miner toting her trusty copper pick. As you enter the dormitory, you see someone stooped over another dwarf, who is fast asleep--and looking quite pale. The stooping figure turns, notices you, and hisses, & you see the fresh blood dripping off its chin. Enraged at this perversion of nature murdering innocents in their sleep, you fly at the figure, and use your years of digging to swing a precise blow that instantly caves in his skull. When the other dwarves enter, you indicate your vanquished foe and say, "He was a vampire! I killed him before he could wipe poor Bomrek's blood off his face!" The chief medical dwarf looks at the puddle of pulp that was the vampire's head, looks back at you, and says, "Well, maybe, maybe NOT."
     So, carrying a weapon is arguably better for the dwarf, but not necessarily for the fortress as a whole.

Vampires are pretty much a stand-in for all stealthy murderers and assassins.  So vampires are very much relevant to the topic. 

     A vampire's goal is not to kill, their goal is to drink blood, blood pumped out by a living victim. The victim can be unconscious, or restrained, but not dead. Lose that battleaxe and find a club instead--and be very careful how you use it.

The detail is not exactly relevant.  So the vampire uses the pommel of the battleaxe to knock his victim out rather than beheading him, it does not change anything about the general situation. 

     Okay, now, that is just completely wrong. A staff can break bone quite easily if you know how to use it. While it wouldn't be really effective against, say, a grizzly bear (which has a lot of padding) or a mountain lion (which, by the time it gets within range, is already falling right down onto you, claws first), I'd still much rather have a staff than NOT have one. As for dogs, you've clearly never been around the wrong kind of dog.

We are talking wild dogs in the wilderness.  I admit there is a slight advantage to civilians in the wilderness facing down predators, however given that generally predators only attack when they have an overwhelming advantage over their prey, the advantage is too small to outweigh the disadvantages in general of having armed civilians.

     We send Herbalists all over the fields, where their presence disrupts and threatens badgers. We send Woodcutters to go chop down the trees where Great Horned Owls (admittedly, should) live. We send Weavers to gather up the webs that cave spiders and Greater cave spiders need for food. We send Fisherdwarves to the riverbank, right through the nesting areas of the herons, egrets, and alligators. And yes, we do send Miners & Masons to go tear down that bear den and build a Tavern there.

The civilians would do better to run away immediately and tell the rest of the fortress about the threat.  Then the threatening area could be cordoned off or soldiers sent to deal with the giant cave spiders or horned owls to clear a passage for the civilians to use.  Arming civilians runs into the problem that the recklessly brave civilians may just think "I can take that bear" rather than doing the optimal thing which is to get the hell out of there.  You do not want a form of natural selection to result in an entire fortress with only cowards left alive. 

     Really? Even if they're covert attackers and have the advantage of surprise? A civilian can't go about the place carrying an enormous battleaxe and then kill off their victim with a single surprise strike? Of course they can . . . well, okay, maybe not a literal battleaxe, but certainly a knife, or hammer, or chain / saw / frying pan / broom / etc. That's because the #1 most important part of fighting is being mentally ready to fight, to be paying full attention, wide stance, guard up, knowing that you're about to kill or BE killed. If you don't have that, your weapons, training, and even armor will probably not save you. Panicking and running away might save you, you do have a point there, but most animals can outrun humans, and humans would logically outrun dwarves.
     Most games use a wildly different metric for civilians then they do for combatants: You could easily shrug off, indeed hardly even notice, blows that would literally bisect an innocent villager. "Don't go into that burning building, citizen, for you will surely be burned alive--whereas I can survive it, because I am trained in archery!" Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that equipment and experience shouldn't matter, I'm just saying that other games exaggerate the difference to a ridiculous extent, and it'd be nice to see DF drag it back to reality. In reality, someone who wants to be a threat to you is a threat to you, no matter what they're holding. Sure, three soldiers vs. three civilians is a clear victory for the soldiers--but the civilians might just take a soldier with them. One soldier against three civilians with nothing to lose? The soldier might kill one or two, but that soldier is definitely going to die, especially if two of the civilians focus on grappling.

What matters is not the weapons or the psychology but the concentration of force (the former just increases the amount of force each individual represents), that is to say getting yourself and the greatest amount of your buddies to simultaneously gang up on as few enemies as possible at a time is how you win, surprise attacks are not an exception to the rule but are a clever way to take advantage of this principle.  Three civilians might realistically be able to prevail over one soldier using this principle, but this is not what will generally happen but instead it will be three soldiers against one civilians, at which point Lanchester's square law (the stronger the force is compared to the other force the proportionally less damage it takes) kicks in to make their resistance completely pointless. 

What makes civilians civilians is not their lack of weapons or training.  What makes them civilians is their lack of organization and hence their inability to make use of the Lanchester's Laws effectively.  At the moment you can already arm all your 'civilians', by the simple expedient of putting all your dwarves into squads.  Of course now they are no longer civilians, which is basically the point I am trying to make; the soldiers move in squads and act in a unified manner, while the civilians do not. 

A lot of games do not understand this principle, which means they need to use the kind of massive discrepancies in stats you describe.  Given that civilians can be commanded just like soldiers can, there is nothing to stop you using your civilians to pick off individual soldiers by the concentration of force AND use them to increase your total Lanchester's Square Law advantage, unless we make the discrepancies massive.  But actually the civilians are not really civilians at all, since they are part of a military command structure and operate according to military discipline. 

[Cathar]

. One soldier against three civilians with nothing to lose? The soldier might kill one or two, but that soldier is definitely going to die, especially if two of the civilians focus on grappling.

One soldier, armed with a real weapon, clad in chainmail and trained to kill has nothing to fear of three unarmed civilians. You can take off the morale factor, which would be absolutely determining in a situation like this - your friend is on the ground gouting his insides and suddently you may discover you have milk on the fire at home- to even attack a soldier you have to cross his control area, which is longer than yours because he has a weapon.

Now before you can do anything, you'll receive an attack. You wear no armor so your whole body is a target. What do you have to defend yourself? Nothing. So you'll go down. Now our intrepid morale imprevious civilians are only two. Two men can possibly overpower one man, but it's without considering the soldier will not let himself getting grappled, and even in a grapple situation, he's wearing armor. They can be trading punches he'd still have the advantage, and this is without considering that a sword strike is way faster than a punch to begin with, and the trained soldier can fight while falling back.

If you are a civilian and you want to kill a soldier, you don't go head on. It's ridiculous. You poison him, you give him a bed and you slice its throat while he sleeps, because in that situation his training and gear are made inoperable.

Which is the reasons why vampires should autokill etc etc

[Manveru Taurënér]

Only by considering the various circumstances is quite helpful is finding out whether this feature is worthwhile.  As far as considering the circumstances I find there to be many disadvantages and few advantages to arming civilians and the disadvantages go up the more realistic the game AI gets.  I don't think the devs should waste their limited time introducing a feature into the game only to have the wiki come up with a list of reasons why it should always be deactivated. 

Personally I find there to many advantages and few if any disadvantages, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then, and see what Tarn and Zach decide (then again I'm of the camp that wanted more realistic mining when that was updated as in needing to cart away mined rock before further mining could commence, pretty much making elaborate minecart systems mandatory ).

(Edited brainfart)

[Bumber]

The civilians would do better to run away immediately and tell the rest of the fortress about the threat.  Then the threatening area could be cordoned off or soldiers sent to deal with the giant cave spiders or horned owls to clear a passage for the civilians to use.  Arming civilians runs into the problem that the recklessly brave civilians may just think "I can take that bear" rather than doing the optimal thing which is to get the hell out of there.  You do not want a form of natural selection to result in an entire fortress with only cowards left alive.

Assuming that they can run away. Assuming that they won't try to take the bear without weapons.

One soldier, armed with a real weapon, clad in chainmail and trained to kill has nothing to fear of three unarmed civilians.

Unless the civilians can throw rocks, or tackle them from behind. One soldier can't face all directions at once.

[GoblinCookie]

Personally I find there to many advantages and few if any disadvantages, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then, and see what Toady And Tarn decides (then again I'm of the camp that wanted more realistic mining when that was updated as in needing to cart away mined rock before further mining could commence, pretty much making elaborate minecart systems mandatory ).

As the game becomes more realistic the disadvantages go up and the advantages go down; at the moment the main disadvantage is simply the cost, since aside from vampires everyone within the fortress tends to live in harmony unless we do a very bad job of playing the game.

Assuming that they can run away. Assuming that they won't try to take the bear without weapons.

Not giving them weapons should make them less confident, which helps keep the braver dwarves alive in such circumstances; running away and getting the guards to handle it is the optimal approach.  They can generally run away because in this case we are talking about territorial type attacks, the predatory surprise attacks on the other hand probably cannot be escaped from.  While arming civilians gives them a slightly better chance of survival, this is not exactly 'good enough' as it were since predators should generally not attack for food unless they have a strong advantage over their victims.  It also comes at the expense of all the disadvantages of arming civilians, which are numerous and go up the more realistic the game becomes.

It would be a better solution to centralize all those weapons into proper squads and patrol the areas that civilians frequent before-hand in order to make sure any predatory animals are chased off or killed and any lairs with territorial denizens emptied, arming civilians takes up weapons that would be more efficiently used to field more actual military dwarves. 

[Manveru Taurënér]

Personally I find there to many advantages and few if any disadvantages, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then, and see what Toady And Tarn decides (then again I'm of the camp that wanted more realistic mining when that was updated as in needing to cart away mined rock before further mining could commence, pretty much making elaborate minecart systems mandatory ).

As the game becomes more realistic the disadvantages go up and the advantages go down; at the moment the main disadvantage is simply the cost, since aside from vampires everyone within the fortress tends to live in harmony unless we do a very bad job of playing the game.

Assuming that they can run away. Assuming that they won't try to take the bear without weapons.

Not giving them weapons should make them less confident, which helps keep the braver dwarves alive in such circumstances; running away and getting the guards to handle it is the optimal approach.  They can generally run away because in this case we are talking about territorial type attacks, the predatory surprise attacks on the other hand probably cannot be escaped from.  While arming civilians gives them a slightly better chance of survival, this is not exactly 'good enough' as it were since predators should generally not attack for food unless they have a strong advantage over their victims.  It also comes at the expense of all the disadvantages of arming civilians, which are numerous and go up the more realistic the game becomes.

It would be a better solution to centralize all those weapons into proper squads and patrol the areas that civilians frequent before-hand in order to make sure any predatory animals are chased off or killed and any lairs with territorial denizens emptied, arming civilians takes up weapons that would be more efficiently used to field more actual military dwarves.

Could you perhaps list some of these other numerous disadvantages? Can't find you mentioning more than that it'll cost precious metal (which isn't really an argument for or against anything, just a fact), and that it'll boost the courage of armed civilians thus making them more likely to fight rather than run away, which again is just a matter of preference between wanting dwarves to be easily controlled vs having more personal agenda. Arguing that civilians fleeing is more optimal or whatnot is irrelevant really, everything being optimal makes for a very boring game and story.

[thompson]

For what its worth, I always arm all my dwarves. Just assign everyone to a squad, set up a uniform, and set the option to let them keep their weapons when off-duty. Then you schedule them to train for one month of the year. Training really helps make them more effective fighters and ensures they periodically update their gear.

I agree personal arms is a law that should be considered in the laws and customs arc. And some forts should ban it too (historically personal arms were banned if lords were afraid of a peasant uprising). But that's half a decade away.

[SixOfSpades]

Arguing whether being armed or not is actually helpful in various specific circumstances is completely beside the point, such notions have rarely stopped people in real life and shouldn't here either.

Only by considering the various circumstances is quite helpful is finding out whether this feature is worthwhile.

     Is gradual clothing decay helpful? Is miasma helpful? Is the possibility of grazers over-eating their pasture helpful? Is it helpful to have four different types of amaranth? I say no. But are these features worth being in the game? I say yes.

     As I said, I don't think this thread is the place to discuss vampires, but just for the sake of being unbiased, I'll play along for a bit.

Vampires are pretty much a stand-in for all stealthy murderers and assassins.  So vampires are very much relevant to the topic.

     AFAIK, the only other "stealthy murderers and assassins" in Fort Mode are ambush squads. And since even a fully armed & armored militiadwarf would be hard pressed to survive bumping into a whole ambush squad, the question of whether a civilian is carrying a knife or not is pretty much a moot point. And while vampires are indeed relevant to the discussion of civilian weapons, they were really dragging the thread off-topic for a while there: Page 2 contains 100 instances of the word "vampire"--"weapon" got only 35.

     A vampire's goal is not to kill, their goal is to drink blood, blood pumped out by a living victim. The victim can be unconscious, or restrained, but not dead. Lose that battleaxe and find a club instead--and be very careful how you use it.

The detail is not exactly relevant.  So the vampire uses the pommel of the battleaxe to knock his victim out rather than beheading him, it does not change anything about the general situation.

     True, but you did specify the vampire using the axe for an instakill . . . so I guess we both have a valid nitpick here.

Arming civilians runs into the problem that the recklessly brave civilians may just think "I can take that bear" rather than doing the optimal thing which is to get the hell out of there.  You do not want a form of natural selection to result in an entire fortress with only cowards left alive.

     That is a good point, but I wasn't implying that giving civilians the choice of fighting bears was a good idea, merely a realistic one. Yes, bears, alligators, and other serious threats should be left entirely to the militia, and even the most violent and foolhardy dwarf should recognize that--unless they're cornered or surrounded, in which case the only remaining option is to grit your teeth and try to take at least one of them with you. As for less intimidating creatures, any able-bodied civilian with a half-decent weapon could most likely take a badger, egret, or owl with little difficulty--but they would definitely get injured if they tried to do so unarmed.
     Long story short, you can still run away if you've got a weapon. But you can't fight without one. And no self-respecting dwarf would deny himself the option.

A lot of games do not understand this principle [Lanchester's Laws], which means they need to use the kind of massive discrepancies in stats you describe.  Given that civilians can be commanded just like soldiers can, there is nothing to stop you using your civilians to pick off individual soldiers

     Actually, the game designers are almost certainly NOT doing it out of respect for some military observations that are so intuitive and obvious that their author has virtually sunk into obscurity. They are doing it for reasons of game balance: If the game can be reliably won simply by massing up workers and rushing your opponent before they have a chance to train soldiers, 90% of the game goes unseen and nobody really has any fun. But DF is bound by no such restrictions.

One soldier against three civilians with nothing to lose? The soldier might kill one or two, but that soldier is definitely going to die, especially if two of the civilians focus on grappling.

One soldier, armed with a real weapon, clad in chainmail and trained to kill has nothing to fear of three unarmed civilians.

     Oh, I never said they were unarmed, I said they had nothing to lose (by fighting). Let's set up a realistic scenario: A well-equipped but non-Elite goblin has three dwarves trapped in a (room that contains a) Farmer's Workshop--usually one of the more exposed parts of a fortress. The dwarves snatch up whatever weapons are closest to hand: One grabs the bronze shears and wooden bucket, another takes the milking stool (which of course is made of stone), and the third must be content with an empty leather bag. I think you'll agree that these are very tame "weapons", especially when compared with things like a Cook's knives, a Carpenter's saws, and a Mason's hammers & chisels. The goblin, meanwhile, has an iron scimitar and helmet, copper mail shirt, and wooden shield.
     As (somewhat) experienced military, the goblin has the initiative, and uses it to attack the weakest enemy first, so that her death will demoralize the other two. He therefore goes for the dwarf with the leather bag. She tries to catch the incoming strike by protecting her hands with the bag, but the blade still bites deep into her abdomen, a mortal wound. But dwarves have nothing if not grit, so she seizes the blade with both hands (and bag, largely irrelevant now) and keeps it lodged in her body for the couple of seconds that her friends need to take up flanking positions. Stool-dwarf grabs the goblin's sword arm just before Bag-dwarf collapses and dies, while Shears-dwarf drops his bucket to grab the goblin's shield instead. Stool-dwarf is at an awkward angle and tries to swing her stool at the goblin's head: the goblin manages to mostly dodge and takes only a glancing blow to the shoulder, but the distraction lets Shears-dwarf stab the goblin in his unprotected knee. With his arm grappled, the goblin's scimitar is useless, so he might as well drop it--but if he does, it will likely be used against him, so he holds on. The fight goes to the ground. Stool-dwarf can now use her legs as well as her left hand to immobilize the goblin's arm, freeing her right arm to swing the stool in a blow that shatters the goblin's hip. The intense pain sends the goblin into shock, and Shears-dwarf rips the shield aside and plunges his shears into the goblin's throat. They hold him down until his throes cease.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then, and see what Toady And Tarn decides . . .

Just FYI, Toady is Tarn. Threetoe's name is Zach.